Metaphysx.com

Thanks to Michelle Malkin, because without her irrelevant post, I never would have found that a guy from Slate, David Plotz, is Blogging the Bible.

Basically, he’s a self-described Jewish guy who loves being Jewish for all the things he’s been taught about what ‘being Jewish’ means. But after a disturbing revelation while reading a random story in Genesis, he’s taking it upon himself to read the “Old Testament” from start to finish and blog his impressions along the way. To me, this sounds like an interesting and worthwhile endeavor. I look forward to reading his entries, but I’m tempted to not read them for a while and instead undertake the same experiment.

But of course Malkin’s commentary on this is… well… nothing really. Instead, she gives the link then tells us that Robert Spencer is Blogging the Koran. I’m guessing that Spencer’s blog is somehow in retaliation, because now that I look at the date of the Plotz post and see it was Sept ‘06, I assume he’s started and already posted some thoughts.

So, I do plan on keeping up with both, because I find both topics really interesting. Maybe instead of blogging either, I’ll contribute “Blogging the Upanishads”.

But what gets me is…

1. Malkin ends her post with “Be informed”, insinuating that if you’re going to read Plotz’s take on Judeo/Christian foundations, you’d better read about the horrors contained in the Koran so that you’re ‘balanced’. It’s almost as if she fears that if too many people read Plotz, and he happens to point out something(s) unpalatable in the Bible, his readers might just convert to Islam (the only alternative). So, to warn those readers, they had better read Spencer’s take on the Koran too.

Just because the Koran may or may not contain atrocities has no impact on what’s contained in the Bible.

Maybe it’s worth pointing out that both the Old and New Testaments were written before the Koran, and hence, are original compilations*, whereas that Bible has quite a bit of influence of the later-written Koran.

2. I just started reading Spencer’s intro post about “Blogging the Koran.”

The average Muslim believes that everything in the book is absolutely true and that its message is applicable in all times and places.

This is a stronger claim than Christians make for the Bible. When Christians of whatever tradition say that the Bible is God’s Word, they don’t mean that God spoke it word-for-word and that it’s free of all human agency — instead, there is the idea of “inspiration,” that God breathed through human authors, working through their human knowledge to communicate what he wished to.

I don’t see where ol’ Bob is really making a distinction. Is Spencer trying to say the Bible leaves room for interpretation where the Koran does not? Whether you claim the words you’re reading are the actual words of God, or claiming the words are merely inspired by the words of God, most Christians that I know, like most Muslims I know, believe the Word (of their sacred text) is the Truth, literal and inerrant… and just as applicable today as it was when it was written.

So, I think what we have here are apples and oranges. On the one hand, an admittedly unobservant Jew who is going to read through the text that defines the foundations of his heritage, ancestry and faith for the first time and deal with what he finds. On the other, we have a conservative religious studies major who has been writing about and condemning Islam for a decade (at least).

Think about this: Which has motivation for bias and in which direction?

Be informed.

*Note: By “original compilations” I don’t mean completely original… only not influenced by the Koran. For the sake of this argument, as it isn’t relevant, I’m disregarding the apparent similarity between many of the Bible narratives with those of other religions contemporary with early Judaism and early Christianity.